JOHN Hutchison (Letters, February 14) pleas for precision when he says "in presenting our respective arguments, please let's be accurate" but writes erroneously about a "reduction in the NHS allocation for Scotland" leaving the Scottish Government with "little choice but to allocate sums from elsewhere."
First, Fraser of Allander, Kevin Hague and the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPIC) all confirm a real-terms Scotland budget increase in the years 2007/8 to 2017/18.
Fraser of Allander concludes: "The 2017/18 RDEL (Resource Departmental Expenditure Limit) budget in real terms is around that in 2007/08." And this measure excludes, for example, non-domestic rates increases of 14 per cent since 2010.
In the SPIC briefing, The National Health Service in Scotland, published on December 9, 2016, Figure 4 graphically displays both the Scotland budget real terms increase since 2008/9 and the NHS budget increase, using a 2016/17 price base. And this is before the additional one per cent real terms increase from Westminster in the draft 2017/18 budget.
Secondly, The Herald’s Iain Macwhirter highlighted on October 30, "the key figure in the Audit Scotland report last week was that – in crude terms – health spending has only risen by one per cent in Scotland in real terms since 2010. In England, spending increased by six per cent in that period. The Scottish Government has always been very careful in disguising this jiggery-pokery."
Thirdly, GERS confirms a Barnett Scotland advantage from the UK of £7,000million additional to spend on public services, unavailable in England. We only allocate about £800m of that additional advantage to our NHS. Holyrood could allocate a £20bn NHS budget, not just a £13bn one. It has never been about Mr Hutchison’s “little choice”.
Lastly, the SNP is doing jiggery-pokery again. SPIC identifies a TME (Total Managed Expenditure) real terms increase of one per cent from Westminster, but only a 0.6 per cent real terms increase for the NHS in the draft 17/18 budget. But even this insufficient 0.6 per cent increase is dependent on counting the £107m for paying the living wage to care workers, which is not an NHS spend, and then discounting other social care cuts arising from councils’ reduced budgets.
Fraser of Allander concludes that counting this £107m funding in health budget lines is "fundamental to the Government's commitment to increase the health budget in real terms. But the Government often counts this as spending on local services". Without it there is a 0.2 per cent real terms decrease for the NHS budget. And to add salt to the wound 17/18 health inflation is forecast as 2.3 per cent.
So the SNP manifesto promise of the NHS as “our top priority” and to increase the NHS budget in real terms each year is broken.
The backdrop is that NHS outpatient and inpatient waiting lists and waiting times, including cancer, has grown horrendously, particularly since 2012. And the outcome is when this scattergun Holyrood budget unravels during 2017, it will have failed our in crisis NHS, causing both avoidable fatalities and adverse health outcomes.
Richard Richardson,
Albert Road, Glasgow.
I HAVE to take issue with the suggestion from John C Hutchison (Letters, February 14) that "many folk are waking up to realise that remaining in the UK Is not likely to serve our best interest in the future ", which seems to come from his heart rather than his head. He cites in apparent support of this view a reduction in NHS funding in Scotland caused by a reduction in the consequential payment received here from the UK Treasury under the Barnett formula. Does he not appreciate that if Scotland left the UK there would be no payment at all under Barnett?
Alan Fitzpatrick,
10 Solomon's View, Dunlop.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel